Solgen asks SC to junk 8 petitions vs DAP

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to dismiss for lack of merit all eight petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

In submitting Malacañang’s and the Senate’s joint comment, Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said a law is not required for the creation of the DAP as the President has the constitutional authority to create policies in the execution of laws.

“The DAP is neither a fund nor an appropriation, but a program or an administrative system of prioritizing spending,” read the comment. 

“As is obvious from its name, it is a program for accelerating disbursements. What is only unstated in the title of the program – DAP – is that the sources of the funds are from, first, the legitimately generated savings of the government, and second, the un-programmed fund authorized in any relevant GAA.”  

Jardeleza said no genuine question of law exists, only error in petitioners’ appreciation of the facts, and that critics could have just conducted reasonable inquiry and reading of publicly available information.  

Contrary to allegations of petitioners, the DAP is not a budget within a budget or a fund without congressional authorization, he added.

The OSG said the DAP was a necessary implication of the President’s authority under the Constitution and that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is empowered to issue rules and regulations to carry into full effect the laws for the achievement of more economy and efficiency in the management of government operations. 

“The President, through the DBM, implemented the DAP in order to accelerate public spending, push economic growth, and promote prudent fiscal management,” read the comment. “This is plain executive policy-making, nothing more.” 

The DAP was the administration’s solution to the tremendous reduction in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) due mainly to the national government’s shrinking disbursement level, the OSG said.

The OSG debunked the claim of petitioners that the DAP is a source of additional powers or that it contravenes the power of Congress.

“(The DAP is) but a label to categorize action and express existing powers of the President under the Constitution, the Administrative Code, and the relevant GAAs,” read the comment.

The OSG said the Constitution authorizes the President to augment any item in the general appropriations law for his office from the savings in other items of his appropriations.

“Following this rule, a legal authorization can be issued to allow the President to go beyond the original appropriation by augmenting deficient items with savings from other items,” read the comment.

The OSG said the President’s exercise of his augmentation power is found in the GAA, the Administrative Code and in Section 44 of Presidential Decree 1177, the Budget Reform Decree of 1977.

“In other words, all augmentations have been properly accounted for because they were covered by a corresponding amount of savings,” read the comment.

The OSG said savings are appropriation balances or the difference between the appropriation authorized by Congress and the actual amount allotted for such an appropriation.

The OSG said the president or the chief justice or any other constitutional officer with authority to augment has to have wide discretion in the determination of actual savings within the definition provided by Congress in the GAA.

“When Congress defines ‘savings’ in the GAA, it is not so much intended to constrain the constitutional officer, as to provide reasonable standards for the considerable leeway in managing funds for the operation of the government,” read the comment.

The OSG said the DAP is a constitutional exercise of the President’s power to spend the un-programmed fund, an appropriation provided in the GAA.

“In other words, Congress authorized in advance, through the GAA, the expenditure of these additional funds which were not contemplated when the GAA was enacted,” read the comment.

The petitioners are lawyers Jose Malvar Villegas Jr. and Manuelito Luna; former lawmaker Augusto Syjuco; Philippine Constitution Association, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Bayan Muna, Kabataan and Gabriela party-list groups, Christian sects led by former senatorial candidate Greco Belgica, and the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage). 

De Lima: Aquino can’t be gagged

In a text message, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima dismissed a plea for the SC to stop President Aquino from defending DAP before the public as it would indirectly violate his immunity from suit.

“No one can gag the President who is constitutionally immune from any kind of suit during his incumbency,” she said. “This immunity is inherent in the office as a matter of necessity and cannot be violated, whether directly or indirectly.” 

De Lima said Aquino is an impeachable official and cannot be subjected to regular court orders that tend to diminish or compromise his ability to regularly perform the functions of his office.

“Any order of a court that derogates on these privileges will circumvent the protection offered by said privileges, and will be highly questionable,” she said.

Speaking to reporters, Press Secretary Herminio Coloma said Malacañang is not about to gag its officials or allies from talking about the DAP while the SC deliberates on its constitutionality.

“We should not be taking steps that would be contemptuous or that would constitute even indirect contempt because we respect the processes of the judiciary,” he said.

Coloma said the sovereign will of the people must also be given high priority as the DAP is of national interest.

“And if you’re going to look at the steps taken by the legislators, we may also understand their position that they are directly elected or accorded trust (by the people),” he said. –With Aurea Calica